The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1887-12-07
Cooking Feed.

Mr. w. A. Henry of the Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station writes
to the editor of the american Cultivotor
as follows:
In your issue of October Doth you say,
in an article on " Warming or Cooking
Food: When the philosophy of
cooked food for stock is better under
stood the steamer will be more thought
of than ever, but it will be used more
for slightly warming food and drink
than for cooking the same" This
seems to me the very best expression
that can be given to our knowledge on
this important subject up to this date.
In the fourth annual report of this
station, just issued, will be found
summary of every and all experiments
on cooking feed for swine that | can
learn have been conducted in America
at agricultural colleges or experiment
stations. The following gives the re-
suits of this investigation:
WISCONSIN EXPERIMENT STATION.
Cooked barley-meal -four trials was to
Cooked eorn,meal two trials to IN
Cooked cornneai and shorts two trials Wv ~ wv
Cooked whole corn and shorts 1.-TWO trials
was 10 uncoOked ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. s5s to 100
ONTARIO AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Cooked peas two trials were to uncooked
sis to 100
MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Scaded corn and oatmeal was to wet
meal lol7 to 100
KANSAS AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Cooked shelled corn was to uncooked corn
IOWA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE.
Cooked shelled corn 1.-TWO trials was to
Cooked cornmea 1.-TWO trials was to un- ~
cookeu 1913 TO lOO
MAINE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
Cooked cornmeal mine trials was to
cooked as''''.''''. S2S to 100
Here we have the results of twenty
seven trials with cooked and uncooked
food of all kinds commonly fed hogs,
and conducted in five different states
and Canada, and in every instance the
result is decidedly against cooking, eX-
cept at the Michigan Agricultural Col
lege, where the gain is slightly in favor
of cooking. The result in Michigan, |
should state, should hardly be enumer-
ated with the others. Professor Johnson
did not really cook the meal, but simply
pail, and covered the pail up, while the
meal in the other pail was wet with
cold water. Lest it be said that | am
forcing my point. include Professor
Johnson's result with the others. Taking
the average of the results in all the
states, we find that cooked feed is to
uncooked feed as SLY is to 100. That
is, farmer gets just as much good
from little over eighty-seven pounds
of corn, meal or other feed uncooked
as he does from 100 pounds of the same
feed after cooking it; or, to express il
more tersely, farmer will lose nearly
thirteen pounds of feed on every hun
dred by cooking it. Who, in the face
of these carefully wrought results. can
say that cooking feed pays? 1t must be
remembered that usually when farmer
experiments he does not divide his pigs
into two or more lots and see how they
would gain if fed in some other way.
In all the cases | have reported an
equal number of hogs were fed on both
sides of the test. Laboratory tests
show that cooking renders the nitro
genOus portion of the food less digesti-
BILE. We are forced by these results to
the conclusion that it is more than use
less to go to the trouble and expense of
cooking feed for our hogs, and probably
for all stock. That we can save feed
or get more gain, or both, by feeding it
in comfortably warm state seems
most rational, and ] hope we soon will
have data enough to give us the light
we so much need. / would say that